I would like to have a global setting or a rule that would restrict certain groups from seeing obsolete parts during their search. There are occasions where parts have different part numbers but are named exactly the same. It can be very confusing for the user to sort through a bunch of obsolete parts or for a new user to select the correct one.
It would be really neat to be able to create a field in Item Details (poss elsewhere too ?) that would autofill with comments from the workflow. For example, when taking a delivery, the user clicks on the 'Accept delivery' transition and has to submit a comment as to where the delivered item is. If this could be a field that was configurable to use a picklist AND then write that same info to a field of the same name in Item Details, it would mean the recipient only has to enter the data once, but it is then visible in Item Details should someone else be calling up the record to see where the item is currently located.
I know that the info in this comments box is used in a couple of places (? in the email triggered by the workflow transition , and in the Workflow tab (which I can't seem to see on this workspace), but at the moment it is not v visible when looking at the record on a separate occasion.
In fact, if you could edit the workflow comments to be separate fields rather than just one box, that would expand this idea further. It reduces the clicks a user has to make to fill in the required info while makingit more obvious which info IS required when moving something to the next state in the workflow.
We need to have a better way to order item numbers in our BOMs. If we're creating a BOM from scratch, we have go back in to the BOM and adjust the sort # on most of the item numbers. When we import a BOM the system will order them the way it wants to, so we have to go back in and order most every item. When we add items to an existing BOM, the system places them at the end. Why can't your system just simply order items in ascending or descending order??
Today I came up against a mystery error because I had a derived field that was supposed to be set to derive from a multi-select picklist, but the source was blank When I tried to reset it, the field I wanted would not show on the list as I now realise you can't have a derived field that could show more than one value (i.e. coming from a multi-select picklist).
Could you add this functionality if it is possible as that would be v useful to ensure data only has to be changed in one place, yet is consistent throughout the system ?
Prevent float fields from showing a change of precision in Change Log every time an item is edited. Seems silly that the Change Log reports a change to a field every time an item is edited even if that field was not modified by a user, user script, import, etc. It's also illogical that something would repeatedly change from A to B (as the Change Log shows) without ever reporting a change from B to A.
We have revision controlled workflow for the DCO workspace. On occasions, I make minor changes to a document after the change order has been accepted (not everyone in my company has spelling, grammar and formatting skills). These changes are minor changes that do not affect the content of the document. I usually find these types of errors when I distribute the document. The next change order created for the document does not "see" the document I changed after the DCO has been accepted, it links only to the document attached to the previous change order - even though you can open my document and can see the document history when clicking the history icon. It makes more sense for the next change order to "see" the last document attached rather than just the document linked to the previous change order.
I like to add to that to have the level 2 headings in Bold. On an expanded list, now that the indentations have been removed it's quite hard to understand which levels are which and I can see our users struggling to adopt this easily - especially as several have dyslexia and find large amounts of textual data in black, white and grey hard to process quickly and accurately.